Agree or Disagree

[jeffwarne]

I think we're reading way too much into one sentence.

I've played roughly a hundred or so links courses (nearly all only once), and I certainly could say I
"used my intuition to figure out the best angle of attack for my game"
Admittedly on many holes I couldn't see the green and sometimes no fairway-and of course occasionally I choose the wrong strategy-but most often screw up due to poor execution.

I rarely use  caddies, and only occasionally a strokesaver-so I guess I'm playing by intuition, although I must say I'm usually aiming for the widest piece of safety I can see and will certainly use less than a driver to control both the line and distance on holes creating uncertainty the first time around.

I think you can still enjoy and respect the Old Course without having disdain for his statement.

[PCCraig]

I believe true stragtegy should be found on a course after playing or walking it dozens of times.

However I am always amazed on some modern courses when the GCA clearly makes a mistake and his "options" arn't so two sided. When I point them out to friends how they should play the hole because of reason A, B, and C they will have these "A-ha" moments. 

[Mike Bowline]

Many difficult, famous holes have a significant portion of their difficulty attributed to the angst created in the player's mind as he stands over the ball. Even knowing the preferred line of play cannot always remove the angst if the preferred line is in conflict with the "intuitive" line.

[Jason McNamara]

There is always a clue on ANY hole.  Some are just harder to find 

Sometimes the clue is a rock painted white.

[Mark_Fine]

Jason,
Very good!  Someone sees what I was saying 

Adam,
Rethink your comment about some holes with no clues.  I've never come across one yet but then again, I've only played a few different golf courses to draw that opinion 

Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Niall,
That is part of the brilliance of The Old Course - the clues are not as obvious.  Think about it for awhile and next time you play it, more clues might be revealed to you 
Mark

[Rob Rigg]

It's been a while but I could swear that there were a few holes on Ballybunion Old that were pretty damn confusing without a caddy or previous info. INTUITION did not always work there.

That being said, sometimes you need a go around or two to know whats going on. Which is fine if you're playing more than 18 . . .

Sometimes it is better to just take the caddy and get instant intuition!

[Sean_A]

It's been a while but I could swear that there were a few holes on Ballybunion Old that were pretty damn confusing without a caddy or previous info. INTUITION did not always work there.

That being said, sometimes you need a go around or two to know whats going on. Which is fine if you're playing more than 18 . . .

Sometimes it is better to just take the caddy and get instant intuition!

Rob

When I posted that I strongly disagreed with the premise of the original statement it was Lahinch I was thinking of. That damn par 5 that goes over the dune looks like it will turn right from the tee and from the second shot.  It was only when I got to the turn that I realized something was fishy with my intuition.  I strongly suspect that golfers aren't forced to use intuition very often with the use of caddies and stroke savers.  The last hole I played which utterly gave no clues was the 10th at Temple.  Park Jr must have laughed to himself many a time over that green. There is something to be said for throwing a curve ball at golfers, but its quite rare these days with stroke savers and the general knowledge golfers have of courses before they ever set eyes on it.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Disagree.

If all golfers do is play one or two rounds at each resort, then agree. But, any course worthy of multiple rounds does not deserve such lack luster design. How did they get to each tee where they could see it all? Ride a cart up the hill?

[Lyne Morrison]

Dale - I agree with Philippe that intuition is the key word here - so what does it really mean?

Dom Bede Griffiths an English Benedictine monk wrote ‘before the intellect begins to act, it receives the impressions of the experience of the body, the senses, the feelings, the imagination. This is the source of intuition.’

When we apply this thinking to golf we may gain a more truthful and valuable way of interpreting conditions than that offered by learning from ‘outside’ influences. While it is of interest or necessary for some golfers to be informed by caddies, yardage gadgets, hazards etc, perhaps it is ones own deepest ‘knowing’ that matters most - the ability to trust oneself - - the ability to trust ones intuition. Granted, not always straightforward on the first visit to a course but there to be tuned into if one chooses.

I cant help but think that in the playing of golf our reliance on outside input has diminished the ability to ‘intuitively feel’ the course environment, much as Sean stated. With an ever expanding culture of golfers being ‘fed’ course information it would seem that the sensory perceptions of these golfers must also diminish over time. Indeed an understanding of intuition and its reference to the game may well be the unstated link required to better appreciate the traditional approach to playing the game as chosen by some modern golfers.

Max Behr wrote that ‘Golf architecture is not an art of representation; it is essentially, an art of interpretation’ he continues… ‘Sand is now being used, not solely for its legitimate purpose – a hazard, but as a beacon to guide the player in estimating distance. Thus a crutch is thrown into the landscape upon which the eye of the golfer may lean, and the hazard of indefinite space, calling for intelligence to solve, is to that extent mitigated.’

Mr Behr speaks of the architect bringing to ‘fruition his intuitions of truth’ that ‘he must first feel before he thinks’ that ‘he must perceive in the ground what might be, not conceive in his mind what must be’ and ‘if golf architecture is to be what it should be, we must finally come to realise that golf is as much an aesthetic experience as it is one of skill.’ For me this thinking can extend from the architect to the player - if they so choose.

My feeling is that Mark Parsinen speaks to his interpretation of the values and traditions of the game and has chosen to explore these in his project work - that sounds ok to me. Philip thanks for posting more of Parsinens thinking - ‘Golf is in large part a game of emotions and how we manage them’ says much.

Just my thoughts - too holistic for some perhaps but interesting to think about.

Cheers – Lyne

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Lyne - wonderful post. For my part, please keep mentioning Dom Bede and Max Behr as often as you like, especially in the same post.  That line of Behr's about golf as an aesthetic experience is, I think, vitally important.  I'm guessing about this, but I think Behr is suggesting that the aesthetic is a human faculty and mode of perceiving every bit as important and legitimate as are the intellect, the spirit, and physical skill -- and this for the golfer and architect both.  That might seem obvious and a given, but it can't have be either (then or now), otherwise golf course architecture would've evolved much differently than it has.  (I think is was it Keats who wrote: 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty'.  I think it's that kind of philosophy Behr is getting to.)  By the way, you may know that Dom Bede was first a student and later a life-long friend of CS Lewis. And Lewis wrote something like this once: The less a man acts on what he feels, the less he'll soon be able to act, and eventually the less he'll be able to feel. (I butchered that line, but it was something like that). CS wasn't talking about golfers, but maybe he could've been.... it sure seems to align with what Mr. Parsinens is suggesting in the line you quote.  And Dom Bede, meanwhile, may have been trying to do a similar thing, i.e. to lessen the absolute primacy of rational thought in the modern world (and the clear cut 'facts' and 'prescriptions' it seem to demand and engender), and to suggest that the more subtle and mysterious wisdom of intuition be given its due...

Peter

[David Stamm]

"Great strategic holes primarily challenge thought. Knowledge of what to do is not immediate. It must be sought. The line of skill is not obvious but is concealed in the line of thought. This first has to be determined, and thought is fallible. Sight is rarely so. On a penal course, we see what to avoid. A good shot is the mere evasion of evil. But on a strategic course we must study what to conquer. There are indeed optional safe routes that may be taken. In most cases the ball may be kicked to the hole without encountering a hazard. But THE shot must weather HELL."-Max Behr


"A golf course comprises a number of targets, many of them undefined to the eye but more or less deceptively situated, and liable to escape the notice of the superficial observer."- Simpson and Wethered

[Sean_A]

Dale - I agree with Philippe that intuition is the key word here - so what does it really mean?

Dom Bede Griffiths an English Benedictine monk wrote ‘before the intellect begins to act, it receives the impressions of the experience of the body, the senses, the feelings, the imagination. This is the source of intuition.’

When we apply this thinking to golf we may gain a more truthful and valuable way of interpreting conditions than that offered by learning from ‘outside’ influences. While it is of interest or necessary for some golfers to be informed by caddies, yardage gadgets, hazards etc, perhaps it is ones own deepest ‘knowing’ that matters most - the ability to trust oneself - - the ability to trust ones intuition. Granted, not always straightforward on the first visit to a course but there to be tuned into if one chooses.

I cant help but think that in the playing of golf our reliance on outside input has diminished the ability to ‘intuitively feel’ the course environment, much as Sean stated. With an ever expanding culture of golfers being ‘fed’ course information it would seem that the sensory perceptions of these golfers must also diminish over time. Indeed an understanding of intuition and its reference to the game may well be the unstated link required to better appreciate the traditional approach to playing the game as chosen by some modern golfers.

Max Behr wrote that ‘Golf architecture is not an art of representation; it is essentially, an art of interpretation’ he continues… ‘Sand is now being used, not solely for its legitimate purpose – a hazard, but as a beacon to guide the player in estimating distance. Thus a crutch is thrown into the landscape upon which the eye of the golfer may lean, and the hazard of indefinite space, calling for intelligence to solve, is to that extent mitigated.’

Mr Behr speaks of the architect bringing to ‘fruition his intuitions of truth’ that ‘he must first feel before he thinks’ that ‘he must perceive in the ground what might be, not conceive in his mind what must be’ and ‘if golf architecture is to be what it should be, we must finally come to realise that golf is as much an aesthetic experience as it is one of skill.’ For me this thinking can extend from the architect to the player - if they so choose.

My feeling is that Mark Parsinen speaks to his interpretation of the values and traditions of the game and has chosen to explore these in his project work - that sounds ok to me. Philip thanks for posting more of Parsinens thinking - ‘Golf is in large part a game of emotions and how we manage them’ says much.

Just my thoughts - too holistic for some perhaps but interesting to think about.

Cheers – Lyne

 

Lynn

It is interesting that we could agree that the golfer's intuition is in play, but to diminished amount than for previous generations.  Yet, we can come to the opposite conclusion to the question at hand.  Questions: Is it good, bad or indifferent architecture when a player either gets it blindingly wrong with his intuition (despite following the the clear and traditional clues) or has to make a choice of one of a few intuitive guesses?  In other words, the the strategy of the shot at hand is unclear and so the golfer is forced to make a go of it without one clear intuitive choice.  How bout blind holes - is it a an architectural weakness when a marker posts are used to offer a a clue for the intuition? 

Ciao

[Niall C]

Niall,
That is part of the brilliance of The Old Course - the clues are not as obvious.  Think about it for awhile and next time you play it, more clues might be revealed to you 
Mark

Mark,

Happy to be proved wrong although not sure how I will be able to say that the next time I play the Old Course that any of my play will be intuitive given that I have already played it.

Jeff

Interesting chat about the use of caddies, or not as the case may be. The only time I have used a caddy was at the Old Course which may explain my lack of intuition on the day.

Niall

[Lester George]

Ditto John K Moore....

Lester

[Lyne Morrison]

Sean – I’m thinking that while it is fair to expect the architect to treat you well - it is the individual golfer who is responsible for his or her play.

Both as individuals and as golfers we can review a situation and ask ourselves what is needed, we can pay attention to our strengths, we can choose what to control and affect - we are free to make choices that will dictate the set up of our next shot.

Mark Bowline in his post touched on the mind games associated with deception and indecision – a key element of the game - and Mark Fine points to the fact that there is always a clue – but perhaps there are occasions when our senses need to be more finely honed.

Nevertheless the stage has been set and regardless of architectural rigour or maintenance irregularities the choice is with the player alone to plot his path -- and this will be a unique and individual path that is more complex and demanding on some days than others.

Cheers -- Lyne

[Sean_A]

Sean – I’m thinking that while it is fair to expect the architect to treat you well - it is the individual golfer who is responsible for his or her play.

Both as individuals and as golfers we can review a situation and ask ourselves what is needed, we can pay attention to our strengths, we can choose what to control and affect - we are free to make choices that will dictate the set up of our next shot.

Mark Bowline in his post touched on the mind games associated with deception and indecision – a key element of the game - and Mark Fine points to the fact that there is always a clue – but perhaps there are occasions when our senses need to be more finely honed.

Nevertheless the stage has been set and regardless of architectural rigour or maintenance irregularities the choice is with the player alone to plot his path -- and this will be a unique and individual path that is more complex and demanding on some days than others.

Cheers -- Lyne

Lyne

Yes, the golfer is always responsible for his choices and yes, there are always clues at hand.  However, and these are rare cases, there are times when a golfer can be forgiven for not accurately reducing his choices to the correct and best play.  I can think of no other course which better confronts a golfer with these apprehensions than Pennard.  There are many shots which are not clearly intuitive despite there being some clues (one or two of which are fools gold) on hand.  If I were to take Mr Parsinen's statement at full value a course like Pennard should never have been built.  This in my opinion would be a great shame.  So in the end, no I can't agree that "A golfer should be able to stand on the tee, look at the fairway and green, and use his intuition to choose the best angle of attack for his game." Often times, intuition just isn't enough.  There can be no substitute for experience, but of course, some experience is built on intuition!

Ciao

[Lyne Morrison]

Sean - indeed, fair point - I've no doubt there are exceptions. Shall we agree that this is a less than perfect world?

Interesting that you raise blind holes I was thinking that I really must read that thread - haven't managed to get to it as yet - but yes I hear where you are coming from. When I was first learning about course architecture blind holes were not considered best practice, litigation had really made its presence felt by then. Provision of reasonable public safety makes sense to me so I have never been much of a fan even though I play a couple most weeks. I must take a look at the thread to see what others are thinking.

Cheers -- Lyne

[Sean_A]

Sean - indeed, fair point - I've no doubt there are exceptions. Shall we agree that this is a less than perfect world?

Interesting that you raise blind holes I was thinking that I really must read that thread - haven't managed to get to it as yet - but yes I hear where you are coming from. When I was first learning about course architecture blind holes were not considered best practice, litigation had really made its presence felt by then. Provision of reasonable public safety makes sense to me so I have never been much of a fan even though I play a couple most weeks. I must take a look at the thread to see what others are thinking.

Cheers -- Lyne

Lyne

Yes, we surely do live in a less than perfect world, but imagine all we would miss if even gca were perfect - if there were such a thing.

Blind holes, well, I think folks greatly exaggerate the inherent danger involved.  It is very possible to build in safe guards which while still requiring an element of good sense on the part of golfers, doesn't really stretch that good sense much further than what they should already be practicing when they can see dangerous situations.  The accidents which occur on courses are either truly accidental and therefore blindness plays no part, or involve a lack of good judgement. 

Ciao 

[Lyne Morrison]

Thanks Peter and yes, I feel there is something there - 'all things in this world are arranged in consideration of everything else,' -- that's 12th century artist and abbess Hildegard of Bingen

One of the things I find fascinating about golf is the way it interconnects with life. I have often wondered - is there any other game that provides the opportunity to engage ones senses and values to such a degree?

I feel an appreciation of these elements must be in part what motivates our traditionalists – I’m thinking they recognise more than some that this is a big, big game and there is much more to it than commercialism. I suspect these golfers gain quite some delight from playing a game that allows their senses to be more fully aligned with its origins. It’s too bad this isn’t more clearly recognised or understood.

Cheers -- Lyne